Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Federal Felony Information re: Former GTB Employee

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the pleading in United States v. Buchanan (W.D. Mich.):

US v Buchanan

From the GTB press release:

November 24, 2015, Peshawbestown, Michigan. On November 23, 2015, the United States filed a “Felony Information” against the former Information Technology Director of GTB, Michael Buchanan, alleging embezzlement from an Indian tribal organization, 18 U.S.C. 1163. The Felony Information is the result of extensive investigatory work by GTB’s Police Department in cooperation with the FBI. GTB anticipates that Mr. Buchanan will be arraigned on Monday at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal District Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The alleged scope of GTB’s loss is extensive, $233,176.12, which is the value of computer equipment purchased by Mr. Buchanan and resold to third parties over the time period 2008-2012. GTB anticipates that Mr. Buchanan will not contest the charges. Further information will be provided after the arraignment and further criminal court proceedings.

Michigan Supreme Court Adoption Day

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Judge Petoskey, Judge Connors, Chief Justice Young, and Justice McCormack

  

Fall 2015 Michigan Indian Legal Services Newsletter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Fall_2015_MILS_Newsletter

Ned Blackhawk NYTs Op-Ed on Dollar General

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “The Struggle for Justice on Tribal Lands.”

United States v. Bryant Cert Stage Briefs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

NCAI Amicus Brief in Support

Opposition Brief

US Cert Stage Reply

Lower court materials here (en banc), and here (panel).

Updated National NALSA Moot Court Registration Info

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VP Moot Court Letter

NNALSA Moot Court webpage

Connecticut Court Recognizes Tribal Immunity, Remands to Allow Conn. Regulatory to Determine Whether Immunity Extends to Tribal Lender

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Great Plains Lending LLC v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Banking (Conn. Super.):

Opinion

Briefs here.

Zepeda v. United States Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Zepeda Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, makes it a federal crime for an “Indian” to commit any one of thirteen enumerated acts in “Indian country.” In this case, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that an element of the offense in prosecutions under this statute is proof that the defendant has “Indian blood,” whether or not that blood tie is to a federally recognized tribe. The question presented is:
Whether, as construed by the Ninth Circuit, Section 1153 impermissibly discriminates on the basis of race.
Opinion here. En banc materials here, here, and here. Panel materials and other materials here, here, and here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Complaint against Chickasaw Housing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials from Sanders v. Anoatubby:

CA10 Unpublished Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Cert Petition in Two Shields v. Wilkinson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Two Shields Cert Petition

ILTF Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Law Profs Amicus Brief in Support of Petition

Questions presented:

In Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), this Court unanimously held that joint tortfeasors are not required parties under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “[i]t has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.” Id. at 7. Six circuits have recognized the rule that joint wrongdoers are not required parties under Rule 19(a). Three circuits now have followed the opposite rule in holding that, in some circumstances, a joint tortfeasor is a required party, while case law in the Seventh Circuit is conflicted. The Eighth Circuit below followed the minority line of the circuit split to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action under Rule 19 for failure to join the United States.

The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties?

Lower court materials here.